What is he, an Arab?

remind wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Are these more the kinds of "future actions" you expect:

Morning in Obamerica

[SNIP]

[b]However, from having reread your linked article, as I had read it prior, a few days ago and had dismissed it, as it had Nader giving opinions, I find that I must stand with the 1 position that I stated before. [/b]This could be, not saying it is, a case of "keeping your friends close and your enemies closer" and I find this supported by the fact that Obama has appointed his senate chief of staff as Emanuel's chief assistant, and did not let Emanuel choose his own. As such, I do believe he watch dogged Emanuel too.

___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"

By the way neither of the articles that I posted here had any statements or quotes from Nader in them. So you either lied when you said you read, reviewed, skimmed those articles and dismissed them because they canvassed Nader's opinions or you have really bad reading comprehension skills.

Neither have Nader in them at all.

So I will see your fish and raise you an:

They are Nader free and safe to read.  Funny these people demanding linked evidence for things they have no intention of reading,

Ya, I was pretty disturbed about that last night myself pogge, and apparently saying nothing about Obama, is to somehow equivalent to lauding his praises. Going to have to start wondering again if it is racism a foot, or what.

Cue, please do stop calling me a liar. AS follows, though I see now it is a separate piece from another day, at your counterpunch link. But good try at smearing me and making yourself look foolish, both at the same time.

Quote:

Then,
after the election, Walsh assessed Rahm’s supposed brilliance in
winning back the House. “Looking at all 22 candidates hand-picked by
Rahm, “ Walsh wrote, “we find that 13 were defeated [including
Duckworth], and only 8 won! And remember that this was the year of the
Democratic tsunami and that Rahm's favorites were handsomely financed
by the DCCC. The Dems have picked up 28 seats so far, maybe more. So
out of that 28, Rahm's choices accounted for 8! Since the Dems only
needed 15 seats to win the House, Rahm's efforts were completely
unnecessary. Had the campaign rested on Rahm's choices, there would
have been only 8 or 9 new seats, and the Dems would have lost. In fact,
Rahm's efforts were probably counterproductive for the Dems since the
great majority of voters were antiwar and they were voting primarily on
the issue of the war (60 per cent according to CNN). But Rahm's
candidates were not antiwar.

Talking to Nader about the Campaign, on November 5.

AC:
In 2000,you drew nearly 10,000 people to a speech in Portland, Oregon.
This year you got barely 2,000 in in the whole of Multnomah County
where Portland lies, perhaps the most progressive county in the nation.
Is this a sign of the withering of the progressive ggleft or the dead
end of independent political campaigns?

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

____________________________________________________

"watching the tide roll away"

Well that is good. He needn't really have done that, however.